History
and the
Art of Storytelling:
Two Tales from the Early American Republic,
Each Told in Two Different Ways
Minnesota River Valley: Rich in American History
Summer Institute, Part I
Presented by Ryan C. MacPherson, Ph.D.
South Central Services Cooperative, North Mankato, Minn., 10 June 2010
For free copies of these teaching materials, visit:
http://www.ryancmacpherson.com/presentations/15/91
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
1
Tale #1:
Women’s Rights in the Atlantic World during the Age of Enlightenment
High School Curriculum, NAEP Historical Period 3
Recommended Reading:
DuBois, Ellen Carol, and Lynn Dumenil, eds. “Mothers and Daughters of the Revolution, 1750-1800.” In Through Women’s Eyes:
An American History with Documents. 2d ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. Pp. 122-85.
Lewis, Jan. “Did the Constitution Create a Republic of White Men?” In What Did the Constitution Mean to Early Americans?
Edited by Edward Countryman, 113-40. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999.
Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1980.
Teacher’s Guide
Answer Key
Primary Sources and Student Worksheets
3
4
5-7
Tale #2:
From the XYZ Affair to the Alien and Sedition Acts
Middle School Curriculum, NAEP Historical Period 3
Recommended Reading:
Herring, George C. “None Who Can Make Us Afraid.” In From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp. 56-92.
Simon, James F. What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 2002.
Teacher’s Guide
Answer Key
Primary Sources and Student Worksheets
8
9
10-12
Philosophy of Education: Some Questions to Ponder
▪
▪
Does objectivity require neutrality?
Might neutrality in some instances inhibit objectivity just as much
as partisanship can in other instances?
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
2
Women’s Rights in the Atlantic World during the Age of Enlightenment
Teacher’s Guide—Two Ways to Tell the Tale
Version A: Second-Class Citizens
Version B: Exalted by Natural Law
▪ Men have subjugated women for
centuries.
▪ Enlightenment ideals of personal liberties
and individual rights were developed
primarily by and for men—more
specifically, white men.
▪ The American Revolution was
conservative with respect to gender
relations—just as with race.
▪ Neither the Declaration of Independence
nor the U.S. Constitution affirmed
women as full citizens.
▪ States typically did not permit women to
own property, file for divorce, or vote.
▪ A common law notion of “coverture”
defined women as daughters or wives,
lacking legal independence and subject to
fathers or husbands.
▪ Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the
Rights of Women (1792) boldly applied
Enlightenment individualism to women,
but women would not receive property
rights in America until the 1840s, nor the
vote until 1920.
▪ The John and Abigail Adams
correspondence reveals the limits of
politically savvy women: Abigail could
entertain the idea of women being
emancipated through the Revolution, but
John would remind her of the fairer sex’s
proper sphere.
▪ And so it was, that the Revolution did not
correct the historic injustices by which
men denied women their rightful status
as equals.
▪ But, women would not give up trying.
What Abigail Adams and Mary
Wollstonecraft began in the 1700s would
continue under Susan B. Anthony,
Lucretia Mott, and Francis Willard in the
1800s, followed by Margaret Sanger and
Betty Friedan in the 1900s. In 2008, a
woman would be nearly become
president.
▪ Human flourishing for men, women, and children has
historically been closely associated with the natural family—a
lifelong bond between one man and one woman, together with
their children.
▪ The Judeo-Christian tradition of “natural law” has been a major
influence in the development of western civilization, providing
westerners with an inner voice of criticism against instances of
exploitation (e.g., Bartolomé de las Casas and Martin Luther
King, Jr.).
▪ Although articulated with great clarity by medieval Catholic
theologians, natural law in fact transcends religious, ethnic, and
other divisions; for example, Confucius taught the same
Golden Rule as Christ.
▪ Both Scripture and natural law prompted New England
Puritans to regard husbands as “heads” of households and
wives as “submissive” to them. They understood headship as a
loving and protecting role. Significantly, women and girls of
Puritan New England had the highest literacy rate in the world;
their intellects were greatly esteemed within the home.
▪ By the time of the American Revolution, a notion of
“Republican Motherhood” was developing, whereby wives
and mothers were valued for the assistance they provided to
husbands and the training they provided to sons (future
statesmen) and daughters (future mothers of the republic).
▪ Voting, initially intended as a safeguard for property rights,
previously had been limited to landholders; thus, household,
not individual, suffrage had been the prevailing understanding.
▪ The Protestant Reformation had regarded the family as the
fundamental unit of society. Enlightenment political
philosophy can be read “backwards” as being consistent with
that ideal, or else “forwards” as promoting individuals as the
fundamental unit of society.
▪ As the revolutionary spirit of popular sovereignty spread
throughout the early Republic, voting eligibility was relaxed,
trending toward universal white male (head of household)
suffrage.
▪ In some instances, women did vote, although like men, they
were to do so on behalf of a household.
▪ Modest liberalization of divorce laws followed the Revolution.
▪ The veil of “coverture” was not necessarily an exploitative tool
for suppressing women; it also could protect their interests,
particularly with respect to the political immunity they
received amid the American Revolution.
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
3
Women’s Rights in the Atlantic World during the Age of Enlightenment
Answer Key
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Yes. (The working draft specifically defines “citizens” as being persons “of every sex.”)
Yes. (The number of representatives per state is proportionate to the number of men and women
in that state.)
No. (Although not all historians agree as to why the committee revised the text in this way,
removing the phrase “of every sex” does not exclude women any more than it excludes men;
the key word is “persons,” and both men and women were counted for apportioning
representatives to each state.)
Yes. (Although it is true that women could not vote in national elections until the Nineteenth
Amendment (1920), it was always recognized that the government existed to protect the rights
of women, children, and non-voting men. How well this principle has been followed in practice
is, of course, a different question, but the historical record reveals that women were, as a matter
of law if not also of practice, included as citizens of the early republic.)
It becomes the joint property of her and her husband, with her husband serving as the family’s
legal representative in public affairs. Therefore, he may lease, trade, or sell it at will.
She would be acting as an agent of her husband (as a “deputy husband”), who in turn is the
legal head of their household.
He should cast his ballot for the best interests of his household, including his wife and children.
This is known as “household suffrage.”
Many examples could be given, such as instances of marital infidelity, physical abuse, or selfish
use of acquired property. These concerns motivated women to seek independent rights later in
history.
Blackstone writes of a wife being “under [her husband’s] wing, protection, and cover,”
indicating an expectation that he would provide for and protect, not abuse or exploit, her.
(Encourage students to discuss this and to provide reasons for their answers. Some might
suggest loyalty to a spouse, since family members should protect each other from tyrannical
governments. Others might suggest loyalty to the nation, supposing an instance in which a
spouse is a spy for a terrorist organization. In the eighteenth century, the primacy of the family
over the state was virtually beyond question. In more recent history, the family has weakened
and the state has taken on a larger role in providing for and protecting individuals. Even today,
however, spouses are protected from being required to testify in court against each other.)
(Again, encourage a discussion or debate, asking students to provide good reasons to support
their views. Although they may not be a single correct answer, some reasons in support of a
particular answer are better than others. Always encourage a clearly stated rationale.)
(This one is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, the notion of having a woman submit to
her husband seems to rob her of political power. On the other hand, it enables her to tell the
court that she fled the country only because her husband asked her to do so, and then she can
claim that if it were not for her marriage, she would have been a patriot rather than a loyalist—
in which case she would be entitled to keep her property in America. So, by submitting to her
husband through marriage she gains legal authority over her property. History can surprise us!)
In the end, the court agreed that William, Jr., was entitled to inherit his mother’s portion of the
estate. (Whether or not the students agree with that judgment will, of course, depend upon the
conclusions they reached in the preceding questions.)
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
4
Women’s Rights in the Atlantic World during the Age of Enlightenment
Primary Sources and Student Worksheets
Name: ______________________________________________ Date: __________
Working Draft of the U.S. Constitution
Final Draft of the U.S. Constitution
Representation in the House shall be “in
proportion to the whole number of white & other
free Citizens & inhabitants of every sex[,] age &
condition including those bound to servitude for a
term of years and three fifths of all other persons
not comprehended in the foregoing description,
except Indians not paying taxes, in each state.”
Representation in the House of shall be
“apportioned among the several states …
according to their respective numbers, which shall
be determined by adding to the whole number of
free persons, including those bound to servitude
for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.”
Commentary and Questions:
James Wilson proposed the language of the working draft quoted above. The constitutional convention approved
his phrasing. Later, a Committee of Style revised the Constitution into the final draft, ratified by the states.
1. According to the working draft, are men and women both considered “citizens”?
2. According to the working draft, does the House represent men and women equally?
3. Does the final draft change the status of men or women as compared to the working draft?
The founding fathers thought the main purpose of government is to protect people’s rights, especially when people
are unable to protect those rights by themselves.
4. Review your responses to Questions 1-3. Did the Constitution establish a government that was
supposed to protect women as well as men?
Today, we often think of voting as a “right of citizenship.” For the founding fathers, it was rather a privilege—or
perhaps a “political right,” but not a “civil right.” In their view, men and women had identical civil rights, but
some men—particularly those who owned property—additionally had the political right or privilege to vote.
The U.S. Constitution is silent about who may or may not vote; each state determines that locally. But the
Constitution does guarantee that “persons” (“of every sex,” as Wilson had phrased it) are to be protected through
their representation in the House.
Just as Congressmen were expected to vote on behalf of all whom they represent, so also property holding men
were expected to vote on behalf of the members of their household. In that sense, women were indirectly
represented.
Today, women have direct representation, since they, too, may vote. However, the Constitution still requires the
government to represent the interests of, and protect the rights of, all people, whether they can vote or not.
Therefore, when men and women cast votes, they are electing representatives on behalf of children, nonnaturalized immigrants, or other persons who cannot vote, just as men did in our nation’s early history.
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
5
Women’s Rights in the Atlantic World during the Age of Enlightenment
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 1 (1765)
“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of
the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of
the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything.”
Commentary and Questions:
Blackstone’s Commentaries summarized the principles by which English courts had made their decisions for the
preceding centuries—what is known as “the common law tradition.” America’s legal system was built on this
foundation of English common law. In the passage above, Blackstone defined the legal doctrine of “coverture,” by
which a woman’s legal identity merges into her husband’s identity through marriage.
Answer the following questions as Blackstone would have answered them:
5. If a woman owned property before marriage, whose property does it become once she is married?
6. If a woman sells some of her husband’s property, on whose behalf is she doing so?
7. If a husband casts a ballot in political election, whose rights should he be trying to protect by
selecting a particular candidate to serve in government?
English common law had three basic sources: history (English history, but also reaching back as far as Roman
times), the Bible, and natural law. All three of those sources agreed that husbands served as heads of households
(pater familias, as the Romans had called it) and that wives were to submit to their husbands.
8. In what way might a wife’s submission to her husband be a disadvantage to her?
9. Which phrase in Blackstone’s Commentaries suggests that the husband should not take advantage of
his wife?
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
6
Women’s Rights in the Atlantic World during the Age of Enlightenment
Judge Theodore Sedgwick’s ruling in Martin v. Commonwealth (1805)
“Can we believe that a wife, for so respecting the general understanding of her husband as to submit
her own opinions to his, on a subject so all-important as [the American Revolution], should lose her
own property, and forfeit the inheritance of her children? Was she to be considered as criminal because
she permitted her husband to elect his own and her place of residence? Because she did not, in
violation of her marriage vows, rebel against the will of her husband?”
Commentary and Questions:
During the American Revolution, the states confiscated the property of loyalists—persons who sided with
England. One such law, enacted in Massachusetts, allowed the wife of a loyalist husband to retain her “dower
rights” to one-third of her husband’s estate, even if the state confiscated the remainder. However, the law required
that the wife remain in America in order to maintain a claim to that property. Anna Martin’s husband William
was a loyalist, and they fled together to Britain during the Revolution. Twenty years later, their son, William, Jr.,
returned to America to reclaim his family’s confiscated property as heir of his mother’s portion of the estate.
10. Which do you think is more important—loyalty to one’s spouse, or loyalty to one’s nation?
11. If a woman is married to a loyalist, should the state also take her portion of their property away, just
because he rebels against the revolutionary government and flees to live under the King’s
protection?
12. If a woman is expected to submit to her husband, then should a woman who goes with her loyalist
husband to Britain during the Revolution automatically be accused of being a loyalist, too?
13. Should William, Jr., received his mother’s inheritance in America, or should Massachusetts keep it?
Disputes over the confiscation of property from alleged loyalists had a special role in foreign relations during the
Era of the Early Republic. The most famous instance, Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816), involved a conflict
between a Virginia law evicting a loyalist from his property and an international treaty between the United States
and Great Britain. To complicate things further, the Virginia Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court
disagreed as to how to interpret the treaty and apply it to this case. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court invoked
the “Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, holding that U.S. treaties trump state laws and that the U.S.
Supreme Court has the final authority in interpreting treaties. Although women did not serve as judges,
diplomats, or other public officials, they were involved in foreign policy debates through such property disputes.
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
7
From the XYZ Affair to the Alien and Sedition Acts
Teacher’s Guide—Two Ways to Tell the Tale
Version A: Protecting National Security
Version B: Infringing upon Rights
▪ Earlier in the 1790s, France experienced a bloody,
chaotic revolution. By the late 1790s, the nation was
stabilizing, but Napoleon had gone on the war path
against Britain.
▪ The United States, as a young nation, tried to stay
neutral. Some Americans, however, had strong
feelings in favor of Britain, and others had strong
feelings in favor of France.
▪ John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall,
and other leaders of the Federalist Party saw Britain
as a better role model for the United States. They
thought the U.S. President should be somewhat like
the British King, the U.S. Senate somewhat like the
British House of Lords, and the U.S. House of
Representatives somewhat like the British House of
Commons. After all, Britain had been the greatest
empire of the colonial period, and it was British
philosophers who gave Americans their political
ideals about liberty and freedom.
▪ The Federalists recognized that national security
requires economic stability, and they had reason to
expect that favorable trade relations with Britain
would ensure economy growth.
▪ The Federalists saw their political rivals in the
Republican Party as a threat to America.
Republicans criticized the British and admired the
French, but the French government was corrupt and
chaotic. Just look at how conniving the XYZ bribery
attempt was!
▪ The Federalists sought to protect American interests
by steering clear of European wars, limiting
immigration from Europe, authorizing the president
to deport aliens back to Europe, and preventing
American presses from criticizing the U.S.
government.
▪ The Federalists did these things to keep America
strong, as a united nation that would preserve the
benefits acquired through the Revolution.
▪ The Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, saw things quite differently than the
Federalists.
▪ France, not Britain, was their role model. Britain had
denied Americans their rights for decades. That is
why the Americans rebelled in 1776. During the
Revolutionary War, France provided funding and
troops so that America could win independence.
France, too, had a revolution, tossing aside the
monarchy and aristocracy of the past and
welcoming a future of democracy and equality.
▪ True, the XYZ affair showed that not everyone in
France was friendly toward the United States, but
one should remember that Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z
were not genuine representatives of the French
government. The real French government is friendly
to the United States.
▪ Moreover, the United States promised to help the
French when the two nations became allies during
the American Revolution. France helped the United
States win independence, and now it was America’s
time to repay the favor—America should help
France against Britain.
▪ Unfortunately, the Federalist Party now controls the
Presidency, the Senate, and the House, as well as the
Judicial Branch of government. The Federalist Party
has enacted the Sedition Act, which violates the First
Amendment rights to freedom of speech and
freedom of the press. When Republicans are taken to
court because of editorials they write in violation of
that act, the judges (who are Federalists) ignore the
First Amendment and find them guilty of sedition.
▪ The Federalists are becoming just as tyrannical as
Britain was back in the colonial days.
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
8
From the XYZ Affair to the Alien and Sedition Acts
Answer Key
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Unfriendly. (The French did not wish to meet, they delayed meeting, then sent three mysterious
middle-men rather than meeting officially, and then they tried to bribe and extort America. In a
sense, France was treating the United States more like a European colony than like an equal
partner in international affairs.)
Federalists. (The Federalists fared well in the 1798 elections. However, after the Alien and
Sedition Acts, the Republicans would start to look better and in 1800 they would gain a
sweeping electoral victory, with Thomas Jefferson as President.)
Yes. Yes. Yes. No.
Federalists. Republicans.
If the law remained in effect after a new president was inaugurated, then the Federalists would
want the opportunity to criticize the president if he happened to be Republican. Therefore, they
made the law expire in time for the next president to be sworn it. (As it turns out, that next
president was Thomas Jefferson, a Republican.)
To shorten or condense.
Freedom of speech. Freedom of the Press.
A strict reading of the Constitution, taking the words literally, would clearly establish that the
Sedition Act violates the First Amendment. A looser reading of the Constitution would allow
for some “wiggle room.” Some Americans take the “strict construction” view, whereas others
think of the Constitution as a “living document” that can be reinterpreted to fit unique
circumstances. (There has been lively debate over this topic throughout our nation’s history.)
(Encourage a discussion, asking students to provide reasons in support of the conclusions that
they voice. Some might suggest that limitations of free speech in time of war are good, because
they help to protect our nation, which in turn protects our liberties. Others might suggest that
such limitations of free speech empower the government to take our liberties away.)
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
9
From the XYZ Affair to the Alien and Sedition Acts
Primary Sources and Student Worksheets
Name: ______________________________________________ Date: __________
A Paraphrase Summary of John Marshall’s Report of the XYZ Affair (1797)
The French government did not want to meet with us Americans. The foreign minister’s
name is Talleyrand. He made us wait three whole months before we could meet with the
French government. When we finally did meet, the government officials did not show up.
Instead, three mysterious men—Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z—demanded that America do three
things:
1. President Adams must apologize for complaining about France to Congress last spring.
2. Congress must approve a large loan of $12 million to the French government so that
Napoleon can continue to fight against Britain.
3. The United States must also pay a bribe of $250,000 to Talleyrand before the French
government will begin its peace talks with the United States.
Commentary and Questions:
1. Did Marshall’s report make the French seem friendly or unfriendly toward the United
States? Explain.
The Federalist Party generally had ill feelings toward France and thought Britain was a better role
model for the United States. Jefferson’s Republican Party looked at things just the opposite. Jefferson
admired the French for their democratic spirit and disdained the British for its royal pomp.
2. The XYZ Affair made France look bad in the eyes of American voters. Which political party
do you think started to look better to many Americans? Explain.
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
10
From the XYZ Affair to the Alien and Sedition Acts
Sedition Act, sec. 4 (1798)
Section 3. … If any person shall write, print, utter, or publish … any false, scandalous* and
malicious** writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of
the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States … or to excite against
them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States … then such
person … shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by
imprisonment not exceeding two years. …
Section 4. That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand
eight hundred and one, and no longer.
* “Scandalous” means harming someone’s reputation by accusing someone of wrongdoing.
** “Malicious” means motivated by evil intentions against someone.
Commentary and Questions:
3. Complete the following chart by checking “Yes” or “No”:
Office
House
Senate
President
Vice President
Party Affiliation in 1798
Federalist Majority
Federalist Majority
John Adams, Federalist
Thomas Jefferson, Republican
Does the Sedition Act forbid
people from criticizing this office?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes
□ No
□ Yes
□ No
4. Complete the following sentence:
The Sedition Act forbade people from criticizing the offices held by members of the
_______________________ Party, but allowed them to criticize an office held by a
member of the _______________________ Party.
The next presidential election would be held in 1800. The newly elected president would be inaugurated
on March 4, 1801. Depending upon the outcome of the election, that president might be a Federalist or a
Republican.
5. Why do you think that the Federalist majority in Congress decided to make the Sedition
Act expire on March 4, 1801?
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
11
From the XYZ Affair to the Alien and Sedition Acts
The First Amendment (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Commentary and Questions:
6. What does it mean to “abridge” something? (Use a dictionary if you need help.)
7. What two freedoms is Congress not allowed to abridge according to the First Amendment?
8. Do you think the Sedition Act went against the First Amendment? Why or why not?
9. Is it wise for Congress to limit freedom of speech when people want to use that freedom to
criticize the government? Explain.
© 2010 by Ryan C. MacPherson, www.ryancmacpherson.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate for classroom use.
12